============================== CFJ 3430 ==============================
Rule 2429 is paradoxical.
========================================================================
Caller: nichdel
Judge: ais523
Judgement: FALSE
========================================================================
History:
Called by nichdel: 06 Oct 2014
Assigned to ais523: 06 Oct 2014
Judged FALSE by ais523: 09 Oct 2014
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Rule 2429 states "Whitespace is generally insignificant, except for
paragraph breaks."
Every definition of "whitespace" I checked (list at the end) includes
or does not reasonably bar the "space" character from being
whitespace.
Thus, Rule 2429 by its own logic also says
"Whitespaceisgenerallyinsignificant,exceptforparagraphbreaks."
Arguably this string is meaningless, though it's reasonably possible
to decipher the original format of the sentence.
However, Rule 2429 also says "Whites pace is generally in significant,
except for paragraph break s." Since this is not only nonesense but
also nonesense that refers to an unindentified "break s," this is
clearly a different meaning that the meaning implied by the version
currently on the SLR.
The second and third renderings of 2429 have a different meaning than
the first and say nothing about whether or not whitespace is
significant. If whitespace is not significant, then rule 2429 (and
most other rules) have extremely ambiguous meanings, many of which do
not say that whitespace is significant. Therefore if Rule 2429 is
true, it both does and does not say that whitespace is insignificant,
in the exact same sentence and the exact same clause of that sentence.
Definitions:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white_space#English
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whitespace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_space
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Rulekeepor omd:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
Supplemental Edition (Single Rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 217/11 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
Wh en interpr et in
ga nd ap pl yi ng
ther ul es ,t he
te xt of th er
ul es ta ke sp
re ce de nc e.
Wh erethet extissi
len t, in
co ns is te
nt ,o ru nc
le ar ,i ti
stobeaugm en te
db yg am ec
us to m,common sense,pa
stjudg em en ts,and co ns
id er at io no ft he be
st in te re st so
fthega me .D ef initi
on sa nd pr es cr
ip ti on si nt he ru le
sareon lytobea pplied us in
gdirect,forwardreasoning;inparticular,anabsurditythatcanbeconcludedfromthe
assumptionthatastatementaboutrule-definedconceptsisfalsedoesnotconstitutep
roofthatitistrue.Definitionsinlower-poweredRulesdonotoverrulecommon-sensei
nterpretationsorcommondefinitionsoftermsinhigher-poweredrules.Rulestotheco
ntrarynotwithstanding,anyrulechangethatwould(1)preventapersonfrominitiatin
gaformalprocesstoresolvemattersofcontroversy,inthereasonableexpectationtha
tthecontroversywilltherebyberesolved;or(2)preventapersonfromcausingformalr
econsiderationofanyjudicialdeterminationthateshouldbepunished,iswhollyvoid
andwithouteffect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Judge ais523's Arguments:
There are two sensible readings of rule 2429. One is as the presumably
intended "It is insignificant what choices in whitespace are made when
representing rules as text"; with this interpretation, nothing is
broken. However, it somewhat contradicts rule 2141, which implies that a
rule content is text itself, rather than being a sequence of words that
is merely represented as text.
The other reading is "In general, it is possible to add or remove
whitespace (other than paragraph breaks) from a rule without changing
its meaning". As written, this is simply a false statement, and as the
caller points out, it cannot sensibly be interpreted as a legal fiction.
The situation is similar to that of a hypothetical rule which states
"This rule can be interpreted with an interpretation other than the
obvious one". I don't see a paradox or contradiction there, just a lie.
I judge CFJ 3430 FALSE.
========================================================================